Q Looses the 3-D of the M?

I don't think Sigma can do all that, but surely there would be a "market" for two different DSLRs and sensors based on the q, one full frame and one APS-c? The full frame DSLR at low res would be fast and easy to use, with delicious color, and with the capacity of astounding detail when desired. The low res setting on the SD10 produces superb color with only some minor loss of detail. And obviously much smaller files.

I really think the q is a winner, once people come to grips with the idea that the M is somewhat limited, and one reason it is limited is the "file bloat" from so many pixels contributing, in the end, so little to the image. It's not that they don't contribute at all, but is the cost worth the benefit? Effectively using both big and small pixels on one sensor is a breakthrough, in terms of imaging in general. But at 10MPx3, as it would be on a FF q at low res, that would be a superb image, with a file half the size of the M. And probably quite capable of ISO 1600 and above: a much more versatile camera.

I can see the attraction of the M, and it works great for certain images, but surely Sigma must be tired of hearing how people have to buy an additional camera for more general use and for high ISO images. In addition, the idea that the M IS the Foveon look, and that such a look has to be "pure" to be valid and "true," tends toward religious and magical thinking, which I find disturbing, for several reasons.